Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nanotech Ink Turns Paper Into a Low-Cost Battery

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the power-your-wallet dept.

Power 129

jangel writes "Stanford University researchers have demonstrated a way to turn ordinary paper into a battery, which may be crumpled or pressed into any form. It's said the technology promises greater durability, higher efficiency, and faster energy transfer than traditional batteries. The technique uses special ink made of carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires. Thanks to the small diameters of these materials, the ink sticks strongly to the fibrous paper, allowing the battery to be extremely durable. The paper battery could last through 40,000 charge-discharge cycles — at least an order of magnitude more than lithium batteries. According to the researchers, the paper batteries will be low-cost, may be crumpled or folded, and can even be soaked in acidic or basic solutions, yet their performance does not degrade. 'We just haven't tested what happens when you burn it,' one of the researchers quipped." This is the same Stanford research team, lead by Yi Cui, whose work with nanotechnology for battery applications we have discussed before. We've also delved into alternate routes to the holy grail of the ultra-thin battery.

cancel ×

129 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Very cool (1)

Bobnova (1435535) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416288)

I want some, especially if they have a decent capacity.

Re:Very cool (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30416738)

Like all new technology, you can safely say that it wasn't invented by black people. Or by women.

Seriously, if they are really so equal, why has almost every last advance in science and mathematics and technology come from white men and generally from Anglo-Saxon culture? Any of you PC types care to explain that one? I bet you can't. Fact is, white people had ships, navigation, and firearms and travelled the globe and they found black people who were basically banging rocks together and did not even have agriculture or the wheel. How do you reconcile that with any notion of equality, precisely? I want a real answer to this, so far nobody has given one.

Re:Very cool (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416848)

Bullshit. Blacks invented the potato chip, [wikipedia.org] the mailbox, [blackinventor.com] the gas mask [wikipedia.org] , and the Jheri Curl [wikipedia.org] among other things.

Racist scum.

Re:Very cool (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30416958)

Yeah, that really compares with the scientific method, mathematics, the wheel, telecommunications, the Standard Model, the transistor, computers, software, the Industrial Revolution, nuclear reactors, the automobile, intercontinental shipping, the airplane ... I could go on for a very long while but I think I've made my point. We can live without potato chips and gas masks and have packages delivered to our doorstep much more easily we can get by without those things.

But, let's not forget other black contributions. Gangsta rap, homie G thug culture, ebonics, affirmative action, children born out of wedlock at a rate far exceeding any other race, an incarceration rate far higher than any other race, and other ongoing social costs that we all get to pay.

So again, where is the equality? Why was it whites who travelled the globe and discovered primitive blacks? Why wasn't it blacks who travelled the globe and discovered primitive whites? If you want to make your case I am listening.

Re:Very cool (2, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417090)

But blacks have huge penises.

That may not matter to you, but it matters to your ex-girlfriend who left you for the power-forward of her college basketball team. When a man has a huge penis, none of what you wrote matters to the women he is seeing.

The puny white man is nothing compared to the prime specimens of humanity. Blacks were bred since the slave days to be bigger, faster, stronger, and more desirable from an evolutionary standpoint.

Women don't want to hear your babbling about Leonhard Euler or atmospheric wave propagation. They want big, strong, manly men who speak slowly and in deep voices, using as few words as possible.

In the end, his genes will be passed down to the mulatto baby. Not yours, his.

Re:Very cool (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417146)

So again, where is the equality? Why was it whites who travelled the globe and discovered primitive blacks? Why wasn't it blacks who travelled the globe and discovered primitive whites? If you want to make your case I am listening.

Raise a black child in a white family and he'll act white. Show me a single black child adopted by white parents that turned out to be a thug and then you can make your case that skin color is relevant. I'm waiting.

Re:Very cool (0, Offtopic)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418282)

God help me for entering into a racist off topic flamefest, but...

There's plenty of rednecks in my neighbourhood with white children who are far less civilized and more ignorant than a number of non-white children I've met. Believe it or not, there ARE black people who don't worship ignorance and violence and surprisingly enough, they raise their kids with the same attitudes.

Now, take a black kid and have him raised by rednecks (assuming the rednecks would take him) and you'd still get a thug... probably with a rifle and a buck knife instead of a handgun, but still a thug.

Your 'anti-racist' response had quite a bit of racist attitude in it.

On the other hand, you have to be careful not to cry 'racist' too easily - you get too touchy about it and then you can't even investigate things like whether the average Kenyan has a mechanical advantage that leads to better performance in marathons...

Re:Very cool (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417360)

Not to mention the fact that firearms were invented by the Chiness, as was the idea of a magnetic compass. . . and oh the US Constitution had many ideas taken from the Iroquois Confederacy. . .

I think you can find far more examples of white people being uncivilized idiots banging the metaphorical rocks together. . . seems like whites are best at stealing other peoples ideas, and lands. . . oh and finding better ways to slaughter people.

Re:Very cool (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416974)

I don't think Yi Cui is a traditional WASP name.

Re:Very cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417066)

Except it was the Arabs who had mathematics, navigation, and a technological understanding far superior to that of anyone else but I guess that just doesn't play into any of your ignorant bullshit

Re:Very cool (0, Troll)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417546)

'What else did they do?'

'Well, there's...' Colon racked his brains. 'There's al-gebra. That's like sums with letters. For... for people whose brains aren't clever enough for numbers, see?'

'Is that a fact?'

'Right,' said Colon. 'In fact,' he went on, a little more assertively now he could see a way ahead, 'I heard this wizard down the University say that the Klatchians invented nothing. That was their great contribution to maffs, he said. I said "What?" an' he said, they come up with zero.'

'Dun't sound that clever to me,' said Nobby. 'Anyone could invent nothing. I ain't invented anything.'

'My point exactly,' said Colon. 'I told him, it was people who invented numbers like four and, and-' '-seven-' '-right, who were the geniuses. Nothing didn't need inventing. It was just there. They probably just found it.'

'It's having all that desert,' said Nobby.

'Right! Good point. Desert. Which, as everyone knows, is basically nothing. Nothing's a natural resource to them. It stands to reason. Whereas we're more civilized, see, and we got a lot more stuff around to count, so we invented numbers.

----

On a more non-Pratchett note, if it was the Arabs who had mathematics, navigation, and a technological understanding far superior to that of anyone else, how come they have to import every damn thing they need (technical expertise, labour, doctors, nurses, etc) from all over the world ?

Your basic Arab wants to sit smoking shisha and drinking coffee. Had you seen Abu Dhabi or Dubai before they brought the Brits and the Yanks in to build their entire infrastructure back in the 70's ? It was all bloody desert, and when the oil money runs out, it'll all return to desert.

The Arabs might have been great leaders in these fields back in the year 0 AD, but since then they have degenerated into a pack of savages, intent on beheading anyone who doesn't follow their "Johnny-come-lately" religion.

Re:Very cool (0, Offtopic)

cas2000 (148703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418638)

On a more non-Pratchett note, if it was the Arabs who had mathematics, navigation, and a technological understanding far superior to that of anyone else, how come they have to import every damn thing they need (technical expertise, labour, doctors, nurses, etc) from all over the world ?

a couple of centuries of wars and european (and, post-WW2, american) imperialism fucked up their culture and sent them into their version of the Dark Ages - which they're still in now....and unlikely to get out of it any time soon because we (the "West") keep on undermining their secular, progressive political movements and propping up loony religious dictators to keep them there.

Re:Very cool (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418838)

a couple of centuries of wars and european (and, post-WW2, american) imperialism fucked up their culture and sent them into their version of the Dark Ages

Bullshit.

The Mongol invasion of the 13th century severely beat down the Muslims, burned many libraries and pilloried
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_medieval_Islam#Decline [wikipedia.org]

The Mongols destroyed Muslim libraries, observatories, hospitals, and universities, culminating in the destruction of Baghdad, the Abbasid capital and intellectual centre, in 1258, which is traditionally believed to have marked an end to the Islamic Golden Age.

Europeans carting off (as opposed to destroying, which is what the Mongols did) libraries and technologies during the Crusades, and Sunni/Shia conflict and power politics hurt just as much.

Re:Very cool (1)

cas2000 (148703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419142)

how does the fact they were invaded by the mongols prior to the europeans make the european imperialism "bullshit?"

it's not either/or - both those things happened. one does not invalidate or make impossible the other. quite the opposite, in fact...the mongol invasion weakened the arabic/islamic empires and made the later european invasions possible.

or, to put it another way, the point of kicking someone when they're down is to make sure they don't get back up again.

Re:Very cool (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419346)

Your original quote was a couple of centuries of wars and european (and, post-WW2, american) imperialism fucked up their culture and sent them into their version of the Dark Ages

  1. The Mongol invasions were 800 years ago, and the Crusades 900-1000 years ago.
  2. The Europeans were in an almost-constant state of war for a millenia, yet still somehow managed a Renaissance, Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution.
  3. Up until 90 years ago, most of the Islamic world was controlled by Ottoman Turkey, not Europe.

Re:Very cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417586)

Almost black isn't black. Also they destroyed there greatness with religion. Something some of us are trying to protect against. Fucking A-RAB failures.

Why post anonymously? (1)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417810)

Why are you posting anonymously? If you really believe what you are saying, you should stand and be counted.

Re:Why post anonymously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30418010)

Why are you posting anonymously? If you really believe what you are saying, you should stand and be counted.

Counted by who?

He believes in what he's saying because he said it. That's good enough. The only reason to identify himself is so people who don't like what he said can give him shit for saying it. So those people who don't believe in free speech won't have his active assistence, wow, what a tragedy. Yeah, he better do something about that pronto *rolls eyes*.

For that matter, if you're really so committed to that premise, why are you posting pseudoanonymously? That's the exact same thing he is doing, just to a slightly lesser degree. Why don't you sign every post with your real name, address, and telephone number, and then come and talk to us about the need to stand and be counted. If that's so important to you, I mean. You'd be crazy to actually do that, of course, but hey at least you wouldn't be a hypocrite.

Now can we please put to rest this matter of focusing on messenger instead of the message itself? Thanks.

Blood (2, Interesting)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418004)

Like all new technology, you can safely say that it wasn't invented by black people. Or by women.

Wrong.

Charles Richard Drew [wikipedia.org] (3 June 1904 – 1 April 1950) was an African American physician and medical researcher. He researched in the field of blood transfusions, developing improved techniques for blood storage, and applied his expert knowledge in developing large-scale blood banks early in World War II, saving thousands of lives of the Allied forces.

They say that "one drop of black blood" makes you black -- therefore we are all black [wikipedia.org] .

In the words of Jesus: "Love ... thy neighbor as thyself." [wikipedia.org] I'm pretty sure he included your dark-skinned -- yet identically red-blooded -- neighbors in that assertion.

As for why Europeans conquered the world, see Guns, Germs, and Steel [wikipedia.org] by Jared Diamond. (Short answer: environmental factors.)

Re:Very cool (1)

FishTankX (1539069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418796)

And I suppose gunpowder, papermaking, woodblock printing and movable type printing, the early lodestone and needle compass, gunpowder, toilet paper, early seismological detectors, matches, pound locks, the double-action piston pump, blast furnace and cast iron, the iron plough, the multi-tube seed drill, the suspension bridge, natural gas as fuel, the differential gear, the hydraulic-powered trip hammer, the mechanical chain drive, the mechanical belt drive, the raised-relief map, the propeller, the crossbow, the cannon, the rocket, and the multistage rocket were all invented by white people too? Ancient China had everyone beat technology at one point. They just lost their edge when they stopped expanding. But to assume that white people were the originators of all technology is clearly false, as numerous examples around the world demonstrate that other civilizations often had inventions hundreds if not a thousand years before the west. A good example of this is the Chinese who, according to Wikipedia under the Chinese inventions section, managed to isolate testosterone and estrogen from urine and successfully use them to treat hormonal disorders around 1150! This would not be reinvented in the west until sometime in the mid-late 19th century.

Re:Very cool (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418866)

They just lost their edge when they stopped expanding.

Just as the West has lost it's edge because it's not expanding anymore.

Re:Very cool (1)

FishTankX (1539069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419084)

Okay, maybe I should rephrase that. China lost it's edge because it sealed itself in and was content to exist as a diplomatic shut-in.

Nice, but... (4, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416304)

What's the power density? If you need a dozen phonebooks worth of paper to store 100wH, never mind...

What's the ink made of? Oil? If so: never mind.

How fast an you charge it without it bursting into flames?

If it can charge faster and has equal power density to LiON batteries, and the ink isn't made out of oil, and the entire thing can be built outside of a petroleum context, I think we might have a winner...

RS

With thinking like that, we'd never get anywhere. (4, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416728)


What's the power density? If you need a dozen phonebooks worth of paper to store 100wH, never mind...

To power a car, sure. If space is ample, or energy requirements are minimal, then this could be very useful.

What's the ink made of? Oil? If so: never mind.

Where does this come from? If you think we're going to eliminate oil derived products anytime soon, think again. Oil isn't going away as a feedstock for the chemical industry. If your requirement is that nothing is ever tied to petroleum, just give up now. You won't get very far.

Re:With thinking like that, we'd never get anywher (2, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416806)

If your requirement is that nothing is ever tied to petroleum, just give up now. You won't get very far.

Won't get very far at a competitive cost anyways...

Re:With thinking like that, we'd never get anywher (2, Insightful)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416976)

Won't get very far at a competitive cost today, anyways...

Re:With thinking like that, we'd never get anywher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417932)

go eat beacon and stfu

Re:With thinking like that, we'd never get anywher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30418422)

welp, I'd have to quit using my laptop, since all of the polymers and plastics... damn

Re:With thinking like that, we'd never get anywher (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417714)

People really have no idea how much stuff we use on a daily basis comes from petroleum.

Think anything plastic...
Also
Google "what is made from petroleum"
partial list of petroleum products.
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm [ranken-energy.com]

Re:Nice, but... (5, Funny)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416812)

What's the ink made of? Oil?

Baby seals

Re:Nice, but... (4, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418042)

What's the ink made of? Oil?

Baby seals

Which are a proven renewable resource!

Re:Nice, but... (5, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416990)

The story isn't entirely clear, but it does say "the technique uses special ink made of carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires". Based on that I would guess the ink may be made of carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires.

Re:Nice, but... (0, Flamebait)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417252)

carbon nanotubes

What is the method of manufacture for the nanotubes? right now, it's petroleum.

After that - are we going to char forests to make the carbon for the nanotubes to power the SUV so Joe Palooka can schlep his fat ass down the block for a six pack and a box of smokes?

And we all know how plentiful silver is... [silverseek.com]

The problem is lifestyle and expectations and overpopulation. Change any (or more) of those three and you have a big handle on mitigating the collapse.

RS

Re:Nice, but... (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417596)

Don't be a fool ...

Apparently we've got an excess of CO2 lying around at the moment. Can't we just grab the Carbon out of that ? And the spare Oxygen we release means we won't need so many trees anyway, freeing up valuable land for growing McDonalds beefburgers-on-legs.
 

Re:Nice, but... (4, Informative)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417782)

Ok, now you're just making stuff up.

Who makes nanotubes out of petroleum? I've worked with carbon nanotubes for almost a decade and never heard of anyone seriously doing that. Sure, you can make them from whatever carbon you want, but it's easiest to make them from ethanol. Are we going to char the forests to get that? If you can generate ethanol economically from forests, then you need to tell someone. Is the electricity used to make the nanotubes from petroleum? Maybe, maybe not. The nice thing about electricity is that it doesn't matter how you make it, it works the same. So you can hook Slashdot commenters up to giant hampster wheels to drive your generators if you need to.

The kids doing this research probably come from farms in rural China, are paid probably 1/3 of what you make and are treated like shit (no probably about that). Yet they're at least trying to solve the big problems in the world. To them, you are Joe Palooka... but for some reason they think the world is worth saving.

Re:Nice, but... (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417884)

All we need to do is mine the asteroids. Get on it NASA!

Re:Nice, but... (3, Informative)

cathector (972646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418020)

your link to silverseek may have some relevant info, but it also has "sentences" like this:
Just as gold miners have cast their geologists to the wind and pretty much eliminated their support structures to find and develop new properties, so haven't the copper miners. Now "they're" worried about a supply 'pinch' in 2006.

Re:Nice, but... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418316)

See, now I don't know whether to Friend you for being a really smart troll, or Foe you for being dumber and more stubborn than an inbred mule with a lobotomy.

Re:Nice, but... (1)

FishTankX (1539069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418814)

This may be a longshot.. But I think by far the largest source of easily extractable carbon on the earth at this point is coal, not oil. And we have enough of that for hundreds of years.

Re:Nice, but... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418152)

The story isn't entirely clear, but it does say "the technique uses special ink made of carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires". Based on that I would guess the ink may be made of carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires.

That's definitely worth at least a +3 Funny ... how the hell you got a +5 Insightful out of that is beyond me.

Re:Nice, but... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418868)

Hey now, don't hate the playa, hate the game. I agree with you completely though, I though that was a pretty clear attempt at humor.

Re:Nice, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30419244)

So were the mods.

Re:Nice, but... (1)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417974)

at least you are applying logic and thought to the situation at hand.

unlike the mindless hoards flocking to electric/hybrid cars because they are good for Mother Earth, even though the electricity to charge the electric cars mainly comes from hydro carbon based power plants and the hybrid cars have manufacturing processes that cause more harm then the entire life cycle of a Hummer. i for one just want cheap semi clean power.

better not show this story to any of the fools worried about deforestation in the US... and what ever you do don't bring up the fact that with the need for more trees the industry will plant more trees. then they'll give you some lame argument about the fuzzy bunnies not liking living in these man made forests. seriously.

can't make anybody happy anymore. somebody is going to bitch about this technology. using trees for power is going to get bad press. mark my words. it kind of makes me smile though. like the California case of the solar power panel guy vs the large tree blocking his sun guy.
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/sf/green-ideas/redwoods-vs-solar-panels-042727 [apartmenttherapy.com] the mindless freaks are beside themselves over who to support and which is better for the earth.

Re:Nice, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30418592)

Silver oxidizes and loses surface conductivity. Any protective coating will prevent conductance. How will this be stable?

Re:Nice, but... (4, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418820)

How fast an you charge it without it bursting into flames?

With a spear, or on horseback?

similar principle (4, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416312)

These paper based batteries appear to function in a very similar fashion to the algae derived cellulose batteries mentioned on Slashdot a while ago. The paper probably acts as a support just as the algae cellulose particles did in the previously mentioned design.

Re:similar principle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30416924)

The purpose of the economy is to produce what is needed not to guarantee the buggy whip manufacturer a job.

So, what exactly is needed not to guarantee the buggy whip manufacturers a job?

--
syntax matters

Re:similar principle (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418160)

So, what exactly is needed not to guarantee the buggy whip manufacturers a job?

Cars, I'm guessing.

What's the energy density? (1)

tinrobot (314936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416318)

I hope I don't have to carry around a copy of "War and Peace" just to power my phone.

Re:What's the energy density? (5, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416486)

I hope I don't have to carry around a copy of "War and Peace" just to power my phone.

No, but it will power your Kindle.

Re:What's the energy density? (3, Informative)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416518)

According to the abstract it is 30-47 Wh/kg as compared to 160 Wh/kg for Li-ion. So it is a factor 3 short of Li-Ion. Still not bad for such a new tech. With some optimizations it might actually stand a chance to replace Li-Ion.

Re:What's the energy density? (2, Informative)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416786)

That's comparing apples and oranges though. The value of 30-47 Wh/kg is for a supercapacitor made using the conductive paper, not for a battery. The article itself keeps using the word "battery" (and so does the Stanford release it's based on), but the abstract only offers that "this conductive paper can be used as an excellent lightweight current collector in lithium-ion batteries to replace the existing metallic counterparts."

Re:What's the energy density? (4, Informative)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417028)

Its about the same as lead-acid

It's good enough to power short-medium range electric cars without the short lifetime of lead acid batteries.

Re:What's the energy density? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417306)

So use it as carbon fiber to build the structure of the car.... Sound perfectly plausible already at that.

Re:What's the energy density? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418170)

So use it as carbon fiber to build the structure of the car.... Sound perfectly plausible already at that.

Sure, until you total your car and the shattered carbon fibers discharge all at once.

A tank full of gasoline is positively safe compared to that.

Re:What's the energy density? (5, Funny)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416634)

No duh. You carry around a jpg of the battery on your phone. When your battery is about to die, you go to a network printer, print off the jpg and replace the new battery.

Burning (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416332)

'We just haven't tested what happens when you burn it,' one of the researchers quipped."

Riiiiighht. They're just waiting to patent electric rolling papers.

Re:Burning (3, Funny)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416542)

Self lighting joints which read out how many drags you have left on a little e-ink burnable screen!

Made completely of cellulose! (and carbon nano-tubes)

Can make capacitors out of em too. (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416392)

You just need a graphite pencil and a piece of paper. Will a paper battery help build gilligan a radio?- probably not.

Re:Can make capacitors out of em too. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417134)

Paper battery, diode detector made from a piece of quartzite found on the beach and a safety pin, coil from wire on the boat... hey, we've almost got a crystal radio. Now all we need is an earphone.

Re:Can make capacitors out of em too. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417162)

But if you meant a transmitter... all the parts are already on the boat. That's even easier.

Cost of silver (3, Interesting)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416432)

How much silver is actually sued in these batteries? Will availability be an issue? Does it work with other conductive materials like copper or aluminum? Intuitively I suspect the problem here will be energy density for the simple reason it is the one thing they did not promise would be awesome. That said with the tesla beating 500km recently these batteries coudl eprform well even if they had half of Li-Ion energy density.

Re:Cost of silver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30416624)

I doubt its very much. How much silver is used for the foil in lipo batteries?

Re:Cost of silver (4, Funny)

whowantscream (911883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416934)

How much silver is actually sued in these batteries?

IANAL, but I can't imagine what case one could bring against the silver in those batteries...

Re:Cost of silver (2, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417616)

Being the same shade as a Pantone Copyrighted Color Swatch ?

Re:Cost of silver (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417088)

How much silver is actually sued in these batteries?

I don't know, but the lawyers cost alone is going to prevent this technology from ever reaching the marketplace.

fancy ink (5, Funny)

trb (8509) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416460)

Ink made out of carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires? That will be almost as expensive as inkjet ink.

Re:fancy ink (4, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416636)

At roughly 2,000$/liter inkjet ink is actually within an order of magnitude (25$/g) of the cost of pure carbon nanotubes. Given the rate at which the cost of nanotubes has been falling over the years and the fact that this ink probably won't be more than ~10-20% nanotubes by volume (my guess) it would be certainly possible that mass scale production could bring the cost down well below that of printer ink. Sad isn't it?

Re:fancy ink (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30416752)

You're mixing up "cost" with "price".

The "cost" to manufacture and distribute printer ink and printer cartridges is very low. It's the artificially-high "price" of printer cartridges for consumers that's the problem.

If most consumers today weren't so stupid and just stopped buying printer ink at the current prices, it'd drop in price quite quickly. Even at just 25% of the current price, the manufacturers would still be making huge profit margins.

Re:fancy ink (4, Informative)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417120)

You're mixing up "cost" with "price".

The "cost" to manufacture and distribute printer ink and printer cartridges is very low. It's the artificially-high "price" of printer cartridges for consumers that's the problem.

If most consumers today weren't so stupid and just stopped buying printer ink at the current prices, it'd drop in price quite quickly. Even at just 25% of the current price, the manufacturers would still be making huge profit margins.

The ink-jet printers are sold at a very low price, one that is not very profitable (if at all) for the manufacturer in isolation. It's not in isolation, however, because they make that money back by selling the consumable ink at a high mark-up. Effectively, the customer is paying a lower price up-front in exchange for an overall higher price over time. The printer companies are counting on the customer to be enticed by the initial low price without considering the overall deal, which would require some thought. Like many companies that assume the thoughtlessness of their customers, this has worked out well for them, unfortunately.

The same principle is in effect for many car loans. I often see car commercials that advertise a vehicle but either do not specify the total price or the total price is de-emphasized. What is emphasized is the monthly payment, and usually for a 60-month loan. A car loan with such a long duration is a great way to end up upside-down on the vehicle (owe more money than it is worth). It also means that the total price you pay for the vehicle is significantly higher than either the list price or a loan with a more reasonable duration. But people who don't consider these things see a low monthly payment and make their decision on this basis alone.

In both cases, the customer gets somewhat screwed just so they can have their shiny right now. Neither arrangement would appeal to a more financially conscious, savvy customer. Generally the "gotta have it right now" crowd experiences a short-term gain of convenience and a long-term loss of money. It's one reason why the USA has a negative savings index and is generally a culture of debt. Because of this behavior, most car dealerships make a modest profit from selling the vehicles and a large profit from financing them.

Re:fancy ink (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417248)

while your correct on the ink jet printers, on the 2 60 month car loans i ahve had in my life, by the time I hit 30 months I am not only on the upside I am easily there. Now in those 30 months I usually make 2-3 extra payments which help. however modern cars not only hold their value longer, but hold together better over time. with minimal maintenance in 5 years you still have a car that can go another 5 years before it can't hold together anymore. A car that was worth it's value some 7.5 years earlier.

Re:fancy ink (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418088)

while your correct on the ink jet printers, on the 2 60 month car loans i ahve had in my life, by the time I hit 30 months I am not only on the upside I am easily there. Now in those 30 months I usually make 2-3 extra payments which help. however modern cars not only hold their value longer, but hold together better over time. with minimal maintenance in 5 years you still have a car that can go another 5 years before it can't hold together anymore. A car that was worth it's value some 7.5 years earlier.

I appreciate what you're saying, but please note that I said "many car loans" not "all car loans without exception." I generally try to be very, very careful about using words like "all" for just this reason. I mean no offense, but knowing that you're one of those exceptions doesn't really change or add to the point that I was making.

Re:fancy ink (1, Interesting)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416816)

Why is laser ink so much cheaper than inkjet?

Re:fancy ink (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417018)

Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful

Re:fancy ink (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417100)

Were you referring to moi?

Re:fancy ink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417026)

Laser ink is laser toner. It's plastic in powder form that gets melted on to the paper. Inkjet ink has to be designed to stay liquid for long periods of time, flow easily on to the paper without smearing or spreading too much, then dry fast.

Re:fancy ink (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417064)

Fair enough, but couldn't they 'up' the prices on laser toner in the same way as they do inkjet ink?

Re:fancy ink (2, Informative)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417194)

Why is laser ink so much cheaper than inkjet?

Because when you buy a laser printer, you are generally paying the full or actual price for that printer. The consumables therefore tend to more closely reflect the actual cost of producing toner.

When you buy an ink-jet printer, you are generally paying an artificially low price. The manufacturer then makes their money back by selling artificially expensive consumables. This is an ongoing cost of owning the printer, so the manufacturer continues to enjoy a high profit margin on the ink long after they have already made back the difference between the artificially low price and a more realistic price.

Microsoft did something like this with the Xbox. The Xbox itself was sold at a loss and the idea was to make back that money by selling games. That's one reason they tried to prevent people from modding the Xbox such that it could be used as a cheap computer, as this would guarantee that they never make back that initial loss on the hardware.

Re:fancy ink (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417294)

Okay I suppose my question would then be; why don't we have the reverse situation, where laser printers are cheap, but the toner is expensive, and where inkjet printers are expensive, but where the ink is cheap?

Re:fancy ink (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418150)

Okay I suppose my question would then be; why don't we have the reverse situation, where laser printers are cheap, but the toner is expensive, and where inkjet printers are expensive, but where the ink is cheap?

On that I can only offer speculation.

My guess would be that it's because laser printers are usually purchased by people who have a decent volume of printing to do. Such people are not the most casual users of printers and are likely to put some thought into their purchases. Many times, laser printers are favored by businesses, and businesses have accountants and others who are expected to make good purchasing decisions.

By contrast, most ink-jet printers are aimed at "consumers" and intended for home use. This is a crowd much more likely to be composed of casual users, to impulse-buy, and otherwise to be enticed by the sticker price without considering the long-term cost of consumables like ink and paper. It's a different market; therefore, different marketing is used.

Re:fancy ink (1)

orange47 (1519059) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417746)

no, the sad part is that we need so much of damn printer ink. what happened with that talk about paperless office (years ago)?
everyone is spoiled by the quality of print (vs monitor).
hm, in a way expensive ink is good.. to remind people to conserve trees

Re:fancy ink (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416940)

Ink made out of carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires? That will be almost as expensive as inkjet ink.

No doubt that, if these paper batteries are ever used power cars, the manufacturers will practically give the cars away and make up the cost by selling consumables.

Yawn (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416482)

Wake me up when they make a static electricity battery that I can charge instantly after I walk across the room and touch it.

Re:Yawn (2, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416640)

It'll wake you up alright.

I knew that oragami class would pay off someday (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416522)

Anyone want a battery shaped like a frog?

I for one hope this technology isn't going to be made by HP or Lexmark...

trees? (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416694)

Just wait until some mad scientist engineers a tree to produce it's own ink and arrange it properly. In Soviet Russia, the tree strikes the lightning! (That's my first Soviet Russia attempt. w00t)

Re:trees? (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418074)

In Soviet Russia, the tree strikes the lightning! (That's my first Soviet Russia attempt. w00t)

Please. Don't ever attempt that again. Ever.

Science: it works, bitches. (1)

kemenaran (1129201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416762)

The mighty power of science, striking again! Some technologies just seem more *elegant* than others — and this one would be awesome.

Finally! (1)

TxRv (1662461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416794)

My dream of origami batteries is closer to realisation!

Ultra-thin battery already commercially available (4, Informative)

dtmos (447842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416892)

Keep in mind that ultra-thin, printed, "paper" batteries (usually printed on cellulose, or a thin polymer film for added mechanical strength, although paper itself can be done) have been commercially available for a decade -- see Power Paper [powerpaper.com] and Blue Spark Technologies [bluesparkt...logies.com] as just two examples.

Printable Vs Paper (1)

LtCol Burrito (1698596) | more than 4 years ago | (#30416896)

While most of the posts so far have focused on the paper aspect, what's interesting to me is the fact that the batteries can be printed. Assuming that you don't need the paper, this opens up a pretty significant world of possibilities. For example, imagine a solar powered aircraft that has the energy stored in the paint? This would give a pretty significant performance increase due to the lack of need for a standard battery.

Also, if there's no need for paper, could you use it as a liquid? Pour it into the interstitial space of your machine? The potential for space savings are staggering.

slightly misleading headline (2, Informative)

formfeed (703859) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417038)

they use carbon and silver. this is like "turning an apple into a battery" when you stick zinc and copper into it.

ePaper (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417048)

Would be neat if this could be used in combination with e-ink to make a self powered sheets of e-paper.

Is nanotech the new asbestos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417052)

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/05/nanotechnolog-1.html [lowtechmagazine.com]

Remember kids, if something sounds too good to be true...

Re:Is nanotech the new asbestos? (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30417684)

Yes, with any newly developed tech one needs to be weary of any potential ill effects. One should be especially careful of anything which you will consume, will touch your skin, or may become airborne if it is not in an enclosed container.

It pays to be cautious, but you don't have to be so cautious as to never use new technology. Even much of the old, commonly used stuff has dangers. Those dangers are just well known. Even most kids know not to put their fingers into light sockets, that is probably one of the first safety lessons parents should teach their children. (At least of those of us who have electricity.)

so many questions... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30417910)

So many questions would be answered if the actual science [pnas.org] was available.

Too bad PNAS charges for people to see that. If you find Yi Cui's site at Stanford and look under "Publications," you may find a relevant pdf [stanford.edu] .

*sigh* if only the editors knew how to use the internet... or is it that they don't know science is peer reviewed and not press released?

Just Wow! (5, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418058)

If you tie a length of this paper into a Möbius strip, do you get an infinite power source - or just AC?

Great, just great (1)

Greg_D (138979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418254)

Now we'll have libraries with "knowledge is power" posters everywhere.

Guy 1: Hey Joe, how many volts you need to run that there dishwasher?
Guy 2 (named Joe, apparently): I reckon three Libraries of Congress oughta do it.

Burning test (2, Insightful)

C R Johnson (141) | more than 4 years ago | (#30418454)

My guess is there will be some particularly nasty smoke when they do get around to testing it by burning.

Thousands of carbon naontubes wafting away contaminating the room, furnishings, clothes, your child's fluffy toys doesn't seem like a good idea.

I sure as heck don't want to be subject to inhaling carbon nanotubes. Not even one.

But will it make us happy? (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 4 years ago | (#30419088)

I think not.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?